[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:56*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:22*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:40*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton
made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was successful.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of
converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132140.shtml

Of course then there was this little lack of follow through by
Clinton.

"The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals Ð with the United States
providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons
against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial
commitment Ð neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)

No one, save perhaps a few loony leftists, *believes North Korea
dismantled everything and complied with the Clinton agreement for 6
years and then restarted and produced a nuke from scratch in 6 years.

Thanks for proving my point. 2003, that was Bush dropping the ball.

It was Bush that pointed out that N. Korea was not abiding by the
agreement Clinton established.
Under Clintons watch N. Korea continued nuclear development.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1E3DF933A15753...
B63

The Bush administration has decided to scrap the 1994 arms control
accord with North Korea that has provided Western energy aid in return
for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons,
senior administration officials said today.

North Korea admitted two weeks ago that it was pursuing a covert
nuclear weapons program, and accused the United States of taking steps
that forced Pyongyang to nullify the accord. The White House has since
debated whether to end the accord, with some aides warning such a step
could lead North Korea to even greater nuclear violations.

That's arguable: North Korea lived up to the plutonium part of the
agreement.

What exactly is the "plutonium part of the agreement"?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...asp?sport=MLB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't even see plutonium mentioned and now with the benefit of
hindsight it is clear that North Korea continued to develop
reprocessing
capability.

Addressed in the mahablog article I linked.

Wasn't that part of the "plutonium part"?

No. Plutonium doesn't require that kind of reprocessing.

Congress, Republican-controlled, yes?

Congress is responsible for foreign nuclear treaty monitoring?
Pelosi? *We're doomed.

Pelosi was Speaker during Clinton's terms? No, the Republican-led
Congress didn't fund US obligations, as you cited.

You mean they didn't pay the bribe Clinton agreed to while
N. Korea was refusing to comply with it's part.

Yes, there's a continual renegotiation with such agreements. The
question is whether we're getting what we need out of it.

In the end, is the Bush agreement better, worse, or as is Boltons
view,
deals with a liar doomed to fail?

The current agreement has promise. Bolton's view is warmongering.

Stephen